Sunday, August 29, 2010

Last year (2009) was the bicentenary of Charles Darwin’s birth and the 150th anniversary of his world-shattering book Origin of Species. Many Christians, particularly those on the conservative end of the spectrum, have had a very difficult time with evolutionary theory as it is considered, by them, to completely undermine the biblical narrative of human origins.

In the book Darwin, Creation and Fall: Theological Challenges, we have a fascinating exploration by a group of scholars who are conservative evangelicals and who accept the current consensus of scientists on the evolutionary origins of humans. Now that is interesting!

The two editors of the book come from different disciplines. R J (Sam) Sperry was Professor of Genetics at University College London 1984-2000. T A Noble is Senior Research Fellow in Theology at the Nazarene Theological Seminary in Kansas City. They have gathered a number of writers who, in this volume, explore the relationship between the biblical account of origins and Fall in Genesis 1-3 and the contemporary understanding of origins as articulated by the theory of evolution.

Each of the contributors to the book takes a particular aspect of the issue and describes, and attempts to resolve, some of the challenges once one accepts the biblical documents as authoritative and the modern consensus on evolution. The book begins with a chapter that sets the doctrine of creation in the context of worship of the Creator. This is followed by a historical survey of Darwin’s struggle to come to terms with his scientific discoveries and their theological implications. The next chapter takes a look at Darwin himself and the theological challenges that arose for him as he worked on his science. Another chapter revisits the early chapters of Genesis and discusses the issue of interpreting this text. Following this is a discussion of the concept of original sin and provides some fresh perspectives on the doctrine of the Fall. The last two chapters engage with two theologians — one ancient (Irenaeus) and one modern (Henri Blocher) who have contributed significantly to the discussions of the Fall, original sin, and theodicy.

In the epilogue to the book, the authors affirm the following:

An insistence that as new information emerges, Scripture, whilst God-given and authoritative, must be re-examined and may require reinterpreting. Christians of a former age had no doubts that the sun moves round the earth and supported their ideas from the Bible …; nowadays we unhesitatingly interpret the passages which seemed to speak of a fixed earth in other ways.

An awareness of the compelling genetic and fossil evidence that human beings have descended from an ape-like line, and that we are therefore related to other living beings.

The uniqueness of human beings as the only creatures made in God’s image, albeit ‘fallen’ so that life in fellowship with God is now only possible because of Christ’s redeeming and reconciling death. (pp. 197-198)

The authors conclude that they have arrived at a ‘…position which seems impossibly conservative but also surprisingly radical.’ (p. 198) They warn of the danger of ‘…rush[ing] too quickly to conflate the narrative of human origins and Fall in Genesis and the narrative of human origins given by modern science’, and they acknowledge the necessity of each discipline (science and theology) maintaining their own integrity with each contributing different perspectives on the issues. They arrive at the hypothesis that:

Our prehuman ancestors cannot be called immoral (let alone ‘sinful’) on the grounds that they killed, deceived, behaved promiscuously, and so on. But when God created the first humans, apes now in God’s image, or Homo divinus as John Stott has called them, these creatures, since they were now brought into this unique relationship to God, became moral agents. Although they shared many inherited — including behavioural — traits with their ancestors and animal relatives, this did not mean that they were dependent on or determined by them. Sociobiologists fall into the naturalistic fallacy when they argue that human ethical norms are no more than correlates of our evolutionary history. But the new relationship to God, being in his image, which led to new moral possibilities and responsibilities, was followed by a failure to believe and obey God, and consequently a failure to grow into the spiritual and moral greatness we were meant to exemplify. (pp. 200-201)

This hypothesis demonstrates how deeply radical and conservative the authors’ position is. The main benefit of this book, though, is not so much in the position they arrive at (which, of course, needs to be discussed, evaluated and critiqued) but more in the model it presents for conservative and liberal Christians in engaging both with science and with scripture. It demonstrates an approach which moves beyond dogmatism and the conflation of interpretations of the Bible with what the text may, in fact, authentically mean.

In the concluding paragraphs of the book, the authors write that

It is our conviction that there is no conflict between Holy Scripture and modern science. Indeed the Christian doctrine of creation provided the ground for the rise of science. The idea that Christian faith and science are in conflict and always have been is a myth propagated by Humanists for ideological reasons, but sadly they are helped by sincere Christian believers who think they are defending Holy Scripture when in fact they are doing nothing more than defending interpretations of Holy Scripture which are sadly inadequate. That does not mean to say that all the questions are answered, all the problems settled and all the mysteries resolved. That is never the case in either theology or natural science! Both are ongoing quests for deeper understanding. (p. 204 – emphasis in original)

Darwin, Creation and the Fall is going to be very tough reading for conservative Christians. Undoubtedly, many will accuse the authors of heresy and blasphemy. If they do, then they will not have seen how deeply committed the authors are to the Bible and to God and how they are determined to give due weight to the biblical text as well as due weight to what we now know about human origins from a scientific view.

And, undoubtedly, there will be those who see these authors as doing nothing more than trying to rationalise their religious beliefs in order to legitimise what many atheists see as an outmoded, irrelevant, and even immoral, system of belief.

But for those of us who want to affirm our commitment to God and struggle to understand that commitment in the context of what we now know from science, this book will be a fascinating journey that, as the authors say, won’t answer every question, but will provide the opportunity to hear from others about a way forward in resolving an unnecessary conflict between faith and science. For anyone interested in these questions, and who are not afraid to think in new ways, this book is essential reading.

Saturday, August 21, 2010

I have had a few conversation lately with people who level criticisms at Christianity on the basis of material in the Old Testament that describes God doing all sorts of things that we wouldn’t accept in our modern world. Richard Dawkins, in his book The God Delusion, writes that:

The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully. (Chapter 2, p. 31)

The mistake that people like Dawkins make is to forget that the documents they are reading are thousands of years old and written in a very different culture and historical context than ours today. It is completely inappropriate to read texts this old as if they were written today and discuss theology in a way that we are used to now.
The book of Exodus is one of those Old Testament books that has come under intense scrutiny, particularly for its stories of miracles that occurred as the Israelites made their way from Egypt and travelled through the wilderness for forty years. Stories like the plagues, the parting of the Reed Sea, manna from heaven, and so on, have all been considered to be myth or explainable in natural terms. But once again, it is important to remember that these books were written in a particular historical and cultural context and we will not understand it unless we try to read it through the eyes of those for whom it was intended at the time.
Tremper Longman III has provided the reader of Exodus with an extremely helpful little volume in his How to Read Exodus. Longman is an Old Testament scholar who has written similar books on reading Genesis, the Psalms, and Proverbs.
The book is divided into five parts. In the first part he develops a strategic approach to reading Exodus. After summarising some of the issues in reading the book, he settles on the project of reading it in such a way as to rediscover the message the original author had in mind. He develops a number of principles for doing so that include recognising the literary nature of the book; exploring its historical background; reflection on the theological teaching of the book; and reflecting on our own situation, our society’s situation, and the global situation. In particular, he is anxious to warn the reader of the danger of imposing one’s own particular view onto the book.
The remaining four parts of the book deal with reading Exodus as literature, including its narrative structure; reading it as history in its own historical context; reading it as God’s story as God rescues Abraham’s descendants from bondage, gives Israel God’s Law, and provides instructions in building a tabernacle; and finally reading the book as a Christian.
In reading the book as a Christian, Longman focuses on the way Christians experience the Exodus, in particular, in the context of the New Testament; the role of law in the Christian life; and the way the motif of tabernacling in relation to Christ becoming flesh and living among humanity.
Two appendices deal with the issues of authorship of Exodus and an annotated bibliography of a number of commentaries Longman recommends for further consultation.How to Read Exodus, although written by a scholar, is easy to read yet nuanced enough to encourage an appropriate contextual reading of the book. Longman gives due weight to the original context of the book and then moves to the way in which the contemporary Christian can relate to the text.
If you’ve read Exodus before and want a good guide to understanding it; or if you have read it before and dismissed it as irrelevant; or perhaps have never read it before; then this book is a good place to start. And maybe if people like Richard Dawkins read the Old Testament following a guide like this they might actually understand what these ancient texts are really saying.Read my review of another of this author’s books How to Read Genesis by clicking here.

Thursday, August 19, 2010

Salt, Angelina Jolie’s new espionage thriller, is one exhilarating ride!

Evelyn Salt is a CIA operative who interviews a potential Russian defector who accuses her of being a Russian spy in the early scenes of the movie. From that moment, the rest of the story is a thrilling chase movie as Salt attempts to prove her innocence – unless, of course, she isn’t! Who is she?

The director, Phillip Noyce (The Bone Collector, Clear and Present Danger, Patriot Games, Rabbit Proof Fence), has given us a very well made chase movie with excellent action, a twisting and turning plot, and a character that only Angelina Jolie could have pulled off. It’s a very smart genre film that will have you sitting on the edge of your seat and so breathless at the end that you will be too exhausted to exit the cinema.

The script for Salt was originally written for a male lead and Tom Cruise was approached to play the title role. However, when he backed out, the script was rewritten for a female lead and Angelina Jolie accepted the role. And I’m glad she did! It is great to have a woman in a movie like this and, apparently, Jolie did most of her own stunts. Wow!

While I’m sure that there will be many who will pick holes in the plot big enough to drive a truck through, it is simply exhilarating entertainment. So sit back, strap yourself in, make sure your hot drink and popcorn are secure, and go on a great ride!

Positive Review ‘It's gloriously absurd. This movie has holes in it big enough to drive the whole movie through. The laws of physics seem to be suspended here the same way as in a Road Runner cartoon.’ – Roger Ebert/Chicago-Sun Times

Negative Review ‘Salt is about as believable as a secret training program for military pilots consisting entirely of kangaroos in flight helmets. But it must be said that the star carries her load admirably.’ – Rex Reed/New York Observer

Sunday, August 01, 2010

One night, Zhuangzi dreamed that he was a carefree butterfly, flying happily. After he woke up, he wondered how he could determine whether he was Zhuangzi who had just finished dreaming he was a butterfly, or a butterfly who had just started dreaming he was Zhuangzi. (Wikipedia: ‘Dream Argument’)

So goes an ancient rendering of a paradox that has intrigued philosophers for centuries. At it’s heart, the brilliant movie Inception (directed by Chris Nolan who brought us Memento and The Dark Knight) plays on this paradox. What is reality and what is dreaming? Which is the most real: when we are dreaming or when we are awake? How do we know, when we are awake, that we are not really dreaming?

For the first 15 minutes or so, Inception completely disorientates and we flick from scene to scene with constant shifting of perspective and confusion of what is real and what is not.

In the near future, the technology exists for entering into a person’s dreams and extracting hidden information from the subconscious. Dom Cobb (Leonardo diCaprio) has made good use of this technology by stealing secrets for corporate espionage. He’s made a lot of money but he is also constantly on the run and has given up all he holds dear for the “benefits” of crime. He is a highly sought-after mercenary.

Then Cobb is faced with the possibility of recovering his life and all he has lost. To do this, he needs to carry out a procedure that has possibly never been successful before, but that Cobb believes he can do — inception. Objective: enter into a person’s subconscious by entering his dreams and, rather than just stealing ideas, plant a subtle idea that leads to him carrying out something he would not normally do. Cobb agrees to carry out this procedure on a multimillion dollar oil company heir. The idea is to get him to split up the company following his father’s death. Will they be able to enter his dreams and carry out the objective without getting caught and maybe dying in the process itself? To do this he gets a team together and a plan…

Inception has been described as The Matrix crossed with James Bond — an apt description. This is one extraordinary movie! It explores the nature of dreaming; the paradoxes of humans “living” in their dreams and their connection to real life; the subconscious; the nature of persuasion; free will; and so much more. Join that with an incredibly complex plot and relentless action and suspense and you have got two-and-a-half hours of entertainment that seems over in minutes and that will have you thinking for weeks.

The acting is superb, the illusions brilliantly executed, the dream worlds beautifully rendered, the action suspenseful, and a story that is intellectually satisfying. Inception is a near-perfect movie. The only negative is that I didn’t feel emotionally invested in the characters. But this is a very minor flaw. Inception is going to become a classic of science fiction. After 101,964 votes by registered users on IMDB, Inception is now #3 in the list of the top 250 movies of all time. That should tell you something!

It is impossible to convey the depth and complexity of this movie. But while it is complex, Nolan has done a brilliant job in telling the narrative so we can follow along. Go and see this movie! Watch it on a big screen. And don’t fall asleep!

Positive Review ‘When was the last time you had your mind blown by a movie? Because when Inception ends and the lights come up, you'll be sitting in your seat, staring at the screen, wondering what the hell just happened.’ – Elizabeth Weitzman/New York Daily News

Negative Review ‘I'd like to tell you just how bad Inception really is, but since it is barely even remotely lucid, no sane description is possible.’ – Rex Reed/New York Observer [make sure you check out the reader comments below the review!]